It has this month been reported that the regressive form of autism does not tend to have an abrupt start (as commonly perceived, especially by those blaming vaccines for causing a sudden start of the condition). Instead the condition develops gradually from age 6 months up to 3 years (and possibly onwards as the study stopped there).

This is of course very compatible with the causation proposed in the update review of the antiinnatia theory, because that causation itself does not strike suddenly (like a vaccination shot) but instead builds up gradually with the infant's cumulating constant inhalation [breathing in] of the mother's dental mercury vapor.

The accompanying observation that parents tend to under-perceive their child's abnormality can be simply understood in terms of the universal natural reluctance to believe bad news. Which for a parent who already has an autistic child, is even badder news.

The NHS has recently published a study of the extent of adult autism in the UK ("Autism Spectrum Disorders in adults living in households throughout England - Report from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007").

It supposedly shows that there has not been any real increase of autism over recent decades. This is the same NHS that's just made a huge scare-campaign in support of the swine-flu scam, and that gives its endorsement to the fraudulent SCENIHR report as supposedly proving the safety of dental amalgams, even despite numerous people pointing out the falsities of that report.

I myself had dismissed the NHS report for the simpler reason that there is no way indicated of establishing comparability of a test applied to children and a test (even if the same one) applied to adults. Update: You can see in the later published Arch Gen Psychiat version that the diagnostic procedure was a very subjective one (dependent on extended group "training"), rather than a mechanically objective box-ticking or bean-counting exercise. This is reflected in how they went to considerable lengths to assure the reliability of the diagnostic procedure. And yet they did nothing to ensure the (infinitely more important) validity of comparability with others' finding at different ages and different decades. And that's because with a non-longitudinal study it is impossible to establish that. It follows that the survey is evidence of nothing, but only leaves the question open of that comparability.

Oh, and they found that none of the adult "autistics" had previously been identified. Which would not be surprising to those who can have a pretty firm guess that they weren't really pathological cases anyway, in shocking contrast to the deluge of cases now constituting a very un-overlookable national emergency in capitalist-corporate-dominated countries.

I welcome the additional critiques raised by childsafetyhealth. Another critical review can be found in issue 34 of The Autism File. It's a shame that taxpayer money only gets wasted on producing and promoting such worthless rubbish as this NHS/ Leicester univ study, when there are plenty more competent people and ideas around.

One of the few autism research institutions that are not in Lysenkoist denial about the increase of autism, the involvement of mercury, and the reality of sometimes recoveries, is the Autism Research Institute.

If there's a uk2.net banner at top of this page, you can get out of it via right-clicking on any link then opening a new window.

THIS IS NOT A BLOG! Please note that this website just happens to be free courtesy of blogger.com who, like all the rest (as far as I can make out) give one no option except the "blog" format, that is pages/posts in reverse date order. I would prefer this site to be more like a work-in-progress encyclopedia but I haven't yet found anywhere where that is provided free and easy to edit and comment (as here). Please understand that any dates and orderings are of no significance here except insofar as I try to arrange the contents in more suitable order.

Legal Notice: The Author specifically invokes the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press without prejudice. The information written is published for informational purposes only under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution for the United States of America, and should not in any way be used as a substitute for the advice of a physician or other licensed health care practitioner. The statements contained herein have not been evaluated by the FDA. The products discussed herein are not intended to diagnose, cure, prevent or treat any disease.